My LGTM still stands. Thanks for bikeshedding this!! :) On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 8:48 PM Joey Arhar <[email protected]> wrote:
> The CSSWG has resolved to rename the method to checkVisibility: > https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7317 > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 8:36 AM Philip Jägenstedt <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7317 is still ongoing, so I >> think we should just wait until it's settled in the next CSSWG call. >> >> In this case, there's been (continues to be) multi-vendor input in the >> CSSWG, and the IntersectionObserver naming >> <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7317#issuecomment-1149949799> has >> been raised. If members of the TAG want to influence the naming, I think >> they should weigh in on that issue. If they have a recommendation after the >> CSSWG has settled the issue, I wouldn't expect the CSSWG to change it again. >> >> But at this point, let's wait for the CSSWG. >> >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 6:29 PM Alex Russell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I'm happy for a clearer name if that's the result of the CSS WG >>> discussion, and we do timeout on the TAG from time to time, but maybe we >>> can ask them to review quickly? I'll ping Rossen. >>> >>> Regardless, given that we are still going to be the first to ship, we >>> have to make sure the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed. Won't block >>> this intent if others are fine to ship w/ whatever resolution to the naming >>> debate happens, but it's an example of a recurring pattern out of the CSS >>> WG (and a few other WGs) that Blink doesn't accept: our process isn't happy >>> to launch without appropriate horizontal review when things are risky. >>> Sometimes we can truncate reviews because we aren't out in front and >>> there's low risk of first-mover disadvantage, but in cases like this where >>> there are no signals from other vendors, the risks of being wrong are >>> pronounced: >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z83L6xa1tw >>> >>> In these cases, it's always great to ask if we can go to OT and ship >>> gaplessly if reviews come back green. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 1:15:34 PM UTC-7 Chris Harrelson wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 2:42 AM Philip Jägenstedt <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Chris! >>>>> >>>>> I think that we should ship this with whatever name the CSS WG can >>>>> agree on. Do you know when this will be discussed, and do you think we >>>>> should wait until after that meeting to approve this? >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's on the CSSWG agenda for tomorrow. Let's wait for that group's >>>> decision on the name, after which I personally would feel comfortable >>>> shipping (though I'm recused as an API owner on this thread, since I am >>>> involved in the feature). >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Philip >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 6:06 PM Chris Harrelson <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 9:03 AM Philip Jägenstedt < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:49 PM Chris Harrelson < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 1:44 PM Philip Jägenstedt < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It looks like the TAG was prodded, since the "2022-06-13-week" >>>>>>>>> milestone was just added to >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/734. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> However, I don't think it's reasonable for us to keep waiting for >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> TAG until mid-June when this proposal already had plenty of input >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> other vendors in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6850. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This API checks the synchronously available state to determine if >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> element is going to be hidden in the next frame, but it doesn't >>>>>>>>> determine if it's really visible like Intersection Observer. That >>>>>>>>> seems like a useful thing to have. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The useful thing is: >>>>>>>> * Reliably detect visibility according to some basic semantics that >>>>>>>> are common to test for (use cases listed in the issue) >>>>>>>> * Provide a performant way to detect content-visibility:hidden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> However, the bits involving inert >>>>>>>>> and aria-hidden do seem a bit out of place for something called >>>>>>>>> isVisible, to me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These two are no longer part of the proposal. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Inert still is, see >>>>>>> https://drafts.csswg.org/cssom-view/#dom-element-isvisible. Was >>>>>>> there agreement to drop that, but it didn't happen yet? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. This issue <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7274> >>>>>> tracks it, just needs spec edits. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've also opened an issue >>>>>> <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7317> to discuss whether >>>>>> isHidden is a better name than isVisible and added to the CSSWG agenda. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYd11QU0yxfbTnyOX_RcX8U%3D03Y35vrebCVd12hPPOU%3Dsw%40mail.gmail.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYd11QU0yxfbTnyOX_RcX8U%3D03Y35vrebCVd12hPPOU%3Dsw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfUpKpub4N9XH%2BBu-3g2f5GD%2B-TzKp%2BM2OOQnBbeOBnS0Q%40mail.gmail.com.
